Appeal No. 2001-1524 Page 5
Application No. 08/615,058
Accordingly, Fischer, Nguyen and Tye fail to make up for the deficiency in
Kramer. In this regard, we remind the examiner as set forth in In re Kotzab,
217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000):
A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to
section 103(a) is casting the mind back to the time of invention, to
consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only
by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the
field. … Close adherence to this methodology is especially
important in cases where the very ease with which the invention
can be understood may prompt one “to fall victim to the insidious
effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the
invention taught is used against its teacher.”
…
Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements.
… Thus, every element of a claimed invention may often be found
in the prior art. … However, identification in the prior art of each
individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the
whole claimed invention. … Rather, to establish obviousness based
on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there
must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability
of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant.
[citations omitted]
In other words, “there still must be evidence that ‘a skilled artisan, . . . with
no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited
prior art references for combination in the manner claimed.’” Ecolochem Inc. v.
Southern California Edison, 227 F.3d 1361, 1375, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1075-76
(Fed. Cir. 2000). At best, the statement of the rejection establishes that
individual parts of the claimed invention were known in the prior art, however, in
our opinion, the prior art relied upon fails to suggest the desirability of making the
specific combination as set forth in appellants’ claimed invention. As set forth in
In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448, 150 USPQ 449, 452 (CCPA 1966)(“[t]hat
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007